From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Jul 10 22:24:39 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0Ajf-0007rt-JW for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:24:39 -0700 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0Ajf-0007rm-B6 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:24:39 -0700 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:24:39 -0700 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Enumerating in Lojban Message-ID: <20060711052439.GC10845@chain.digitalkingdom.org> References: <1684503175.20060710193640@mail.ru> <925d17560607100826x2a37ffcfi69c9964cabf0b53@mail.gmail.com> <537d06d00607100919v70febc62u93929e72b0041c48@mail.gmail.com> <20060710164123.GS3440@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20060710173540.GV3440@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 3409 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 09:41:29PM -0400, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > Ah, I think I see the trick. So, instead of using a grouping rule > like everywhere else, with the elidable terminators they decided > to just say that anything caught being ambiguous because of a lack > of a terminator was to be thrown out of the language? Did you actually read anything I wrote? Or the pages I linked to? If you would like to demonstrate a system other than PEG that handles elidable terminators in the context of a formal grammar, please be my guest. Until then, I'm really not sure what we're talking about. > such that rather than "le xekri ckafi" being disambiguated by a > grouping rule like "tanru group tighter than descriptions", it's > ungrammatical, because it could either be "(le xekri) ckafi" or > "le (xekri ckafi)"? I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Precedence of "le xekri ckafi" is obviously handleable in CFGs, and has nothing whatever to do with the difficulty of handling elidable terminators in a formal language. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/